The Effects of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome on Response Execution and Inhibition: An Event-Related Potential Study
The Effects of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome on Response Execution and Inhibition: An Event-Related Potential Study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1530-0277.2009.01038.x
复制
发表时间：
2009-11-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Jacobson, Sandra W.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Burden, Matthew J.;Andrew, Colin;Jacobson, Sandra W.
背景：执行功能缺陷和较慢的处理速度是胎儿酒精暴露儿童的特征，但胎儿酒精谱系障碍认知处理缺陷的神经活动的时间动力学很少被研究。为此，事件相关电位（ERPs）被用来研究酒精相关的反应抑制的性质，通过确定不同的神经激活在任务performance.Methods：我们记录了ERPs在2组儿童在开普敦，南非在一个去/不去反应抑制任务（M年龄= 11.7岁;范围= 10 - 13岁）-1例诊断为胎儿酒精综合征（FAS）或部分FAS（FAS/PFAS; n = 7）;另一组，对照组，其母亲在怀孕期间戒酒或仅少量饮酒（n = 6）。孩子们被指示按下一个“去”的反应按钮，所有的字母刺激，除了字母“X”，“不去”的刺激，这发生相对罕见。结果：任务执行的准确性和反应时间组之间没有差异，但出现了3个ERP组件P2，N2和P3的差异。FAS/PFAS组的P2峰潜伏期较慢，这表明在相对早期阶段（类似于刺激开始后200 ms）视觉信息的处理效率较低。此外，对照组对Go与No-go显示出更大的P2振幅，表明FAS/PFAS组中未观察到的条件之间的早期区分。与先前关于认知控制相关任务的文献一致，对照组显示出定义明确、较大的N2到No-go比Go，这在FAS/PFAS组中不明显。这两个群体表现出预期的较大P3振幅不去与去，但这种情况下的差异持续在一个晚期慢波的FAS/PFAS组，这表明增加认知efforts.Conclusions：时间和幅度的差异，在ERP措施表明，较慢，效率较低的处理过程中的特点FAS/PFAS组在初始刺激识别。此外，暴露的儿童在整个刺激和反应评价过程中表现出不太明显的成分，参与成功的反应抑制。虽然两组都能够同样好地抑制他们的反应，但FAS/PFAS儿童的神经激活水平更高，表明更多的认知努力。在神经激活的离散阶段的反应抑制处理的具体赤字可能有影响的理解酒精相关的缺陷在其他认知领域的性质。
Background:Both executive function deficits and slower processing speed are characteristic of children with fetal alcohol exposure, but the temporal dynamics of neural activity underlying cognitive processing deficits in fetal alcohol spectrum disorder have rarely been studied. To this end, event-related potentials (ERPs) were used to examine the nature of alcohol-related effects on response inhibition by identifying differences in neural activation during task performance.Methods:We recorded ERPs during a Go/No-go response inhibition task in 2 groups of children in Cape Town, South Africa (M age = 11.7 years; range = 10 to 13)-one diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) or partial FAS (FAS/PFAS; n = 7); the other, a control group whose mothers abstained or drank only minimally during pregnancy (n = 6). Children were instructed to press a "Go" response button to all letter stimuli presented except for the letter "X," the "No-go" stimulus, which occurred relatively infrequently.Results:Task performance accuracy and reaction time did not differ between groups, but differences emerged for 3 ERP components-P2, N2, and P3. The FAS/PFAS group showed a slower latency to peak P2, suggesting less efficient processing of visual information at a relatively early stage (similar to 200 ms after stimulus onset). Moreover, controls showed a larger P2 amplitude to Go versus No-go, indicating an early discrimination between conditions that was not seen in the FAS/PFAS group. Consistent with previous literature on tasks related to cognitive control, the control group showed a well-defined, larger N2 to No-go versus Go, which was not evident in the FAS/PFAS group. Both groups showed the expected larger P3 amplitude to No-go versus Go, but this condition difference persisted in a late slow wave for the FAS/PFAS group, suggesting increased cognitive effort.Conclusions:The timing and amplitude differences in the ERP measures suggest that slower, less efficient processing characterizes the FAS/PFAS group during initial stimulus identification. Moreover, the exposed children showed less sharply defined components throughout the stimulus and response evaluation processes involved in successful response inhibition. Although both groups were able to inhibit their responses equally well, the level of neural activation in the children with FAS/PFAS was greater, suggesting more cognitive effort. The specific deficits in response inhibition processing at discrete stages of neural activation may have implications for understanding the nature of alcohol-related deficits in other cognitive domains as well.